G.R. No.

150723             July 11, 2006

RAMONITO MANABAN, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a petition for review1 of the Decision2 dated 21 May 2001 and the Resolution3 dated 8
November 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23790. In its 21 May 2001 Decision, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219 ("trial
court"), finding Ramonito Manaban ("Manaban") guilty of the crime of homicide. In its 8 November
2001 Resolution, the Court of Appeals modified its Decision by reducing the award for loss of
earning capacity.
The Facts
The facts as narrated by the trial court are as follows:
On October 11, 1996, at around 1:25 o’clock in the morning, Joselito Bautista, a father and a
member of the UP Police Force, took his daughter, Frinzi, who complained of difficulty in
breathing, to the UP Health Center. There, the doctors prescribed certain medicines to be
purchased. Needing money therefore, Joselito Bautista, who had taken alcoholic drinks
earlier, proceeded to the BPI Kalayaan Branch to withdraw some money from its Automated
Teller Machine (ATM).
Upon arrival at the bank, Bautista proceeded to the ATM booth but because he could not
effectively withdraw money, he started kicking and pounding on the machine. For said
reason, the bank security guard, Ramonito Manaban, approached and asked him what the
problem was. Bautista complained that his ATM was retrieved by the machine and that no
money came out of it. After Manaban had checked the receipt, he informed Bautista that the
Personal Identification Nu (PIN) entered was wrong and advised him to just return the next
morning. This angered Bautista all the more and resumed pounding on the machine.
Manaban then urged him to calm down and referred him to their customer service over the
phone. Still not mollified, Bautista continued raging and striking the machine. When
Manaban could no longer pacify him, he fired a warning shot. That diverted the attention of
Bautista. Instead of venting his ire against the machine, he confronted Manaban. After some
exchange of words, a shot rang out fatally hitting Bautista.4
On 24 October 1996, Manaban was charged with the crime of murder. The Information states:
That on or about the 11th day of October 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-
named accused, armed with a gun, and with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon
the person of one JOSELITO BAUTISTA, by then and there, shooting him at the back portion
of his body, thereby inflicting upon said JOSELITO BAUTISTA mortal wounds which were
the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the
heirs of the said JOSELITO BAUTISTA.5
When arraigned on 4 December 1996,6 Manaban pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Trial
then followed.
The Trial
The Prosecution’s Version
The prosecution presented six witnesses: (1) Faustino Delariarte ("Delariarte"); (2) SPO1 Dominador
Salvador ("SPO1 Salvador"); (3) Rodolfo Bilgera ("Bilgera"); (4) Celedonia H. Tan ("Tan"); (5) Dr.
Eduardo T. Vargas ("Dr. Vargas"); and (6) Editha Bautista ("Editha").
Delariarte was a security guard who was employed by the same security agency as Manaban.
Delariarte testified that in the early morning of 11 October 1996, their duty officer, Diosdado Morga,
called him and informed him that one of the guards stationed at the BPI Kalayaan Branch ("BPI
Kalayaan") was involved in a shooting incident. When he arrived at the bank, Delariarte saw
Manaban inside the bank using the phone. He also saw Joselito Bautista ("Bautista") lying on the
ground but still alive. He then told their company driver, Virgilio Cancisio ("Cancisio"), to take
Bautista to the hospital but to be careful since there was a gun tucked in Bautista’s waist. Bautista
allegedly reeked of alcohol. Delariarte further testified that when Manaban came out of the bank,
Manaban admitted to Delariarte that he shot Bautista.7
SPO1 Salvador was a police investigator assigned at Station 10, Philippine National Police-Central
Police District Command (PNP-CPDC) of Quezon City. SPO1 Salvador testified that on 11 October
1996, about 2:05 a.m., the duty desk officer SPO2 Redemption Negre sent him, SPO1 Jerry Abad
and SPO1 Ruben Reyes to BPI Kalayaan to investigate an alleged shooting incident. SPO1
Salvador testified that when they arrived at BPI Kalayaan, they were met by Delariarte and Cancisio.
Manaban then approached them and surrendered his service firearm, a .38 caliber revolver, to
SPO1 Salvador. Manaban allegedly admitted shooting Bautista. SPO1 Salvador and his team
investigated the crime scene. According to SPO1 Salvador, he saw Bautista lying on his back near
the Automated Teller Machine ("ATM"). A .38 caliber revolver inside a locked holster was tucked in
Bautista’s right waist. SPO1 Salvador noticed that Bautista, who was still breathing, had been shot in
the back. They brought Bautista to the East Avenue Medical Center where Bautista later died.
Thereafter, they proceeded to the police station and turned over Manaban to their desk officer for
proper disposition and investigation.8
Dr. Vargas, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Medico-Legal Officer, conducted an autopsy on
Bautista’s cadaver. Dr. Vargas testified that Bautista died of a gunshot wound. According to him, the
point of entry of the bullet was at the back, on the right side of the body and there was no exit point.
He stated that he was able to recover the slug from the left anterior portion of the victim’s body and
that he later submitted the slug to the NBI Ballistics Division. Dr. Vargas further stated that the bullet
wound was fatal because the bullet hit the right lung and lacerated parts of the liver, stomach and
the pancreas. Based on the location of the gunshot wound, Dr. Vargas deduced that the assailant
must have been behind the victim, on the right side, when he shot the victim.9 Dr. Vargas also
testified that the absence of signs of near-fire indicates that the distance between the muzzle of the
gun and the point of entry was more than 24 inches. During cross-examination, Dr. Vargas testified
that he was able to take blood samples from the victim which, based on the NBI Chemistry Division
analysis, tested positive for alcohol.10 Dr. Vargas issued a certificate of post-mortem
examination11 and an autopsy report.12
Bilgera was a ballistician at the Firearms Investigation Division (FID) of the NBI. Bilgera testified that
upon receiving a letter-request dated 11 October 1996 from PNP Police Inspector Percival
Fontanilla, he conducted a ballistic examination on the following specimens submitted to him:
1. One (1) ARMSCOR 2015, Caliber .38 Revolver, SN-28909 marked "DBS";
2. One (1) ARMSCOR 200, Caliber .38 Revolver, SN-P03471 marked "DBS";
3. One (1) Caliber .38 one badly deformed copper coated lead bullet marked "RM";
4. Two (2) Caliber .38 empty shells marked "RM-1" and "RM-2";
5. One (1) Caliber .38 misfired ammunition marked "RM-3";
6. Nine (9) Caliber .38 ammunition marked "RM-4", "RM-5", "RM-6" and "JB-1" to "JB-6"; and
7. One (1) Caliber .38 deformed copper coated lead bullet marked "JB". (Re-FID No. 606-14-
1096 [N-96-2047]).13
Based on the examination, Bilgera concluded that the bullet which was extracted from Bautista’s
body by the medico-legal officer was fired from the ARMSCOR 2015 .38 Caliber revolver with Serial
No. 2890914 and that the empty shells also came from the same gun. Bilgera submitted a written
report15 on the result of his examination.
Editha, the widow of Joselito Bautista, testified that she was married to Bautista on 22 December
1993 in civil rites and that they have four children, the eldest of whom was 13 years old. Editha
stated that her husband, who was a member of the University of the Philippines Police Force ("UP
Police Force") since 1985, was receiving a monthly salary of P5,050 at the time of his death. She
narrated that on 11 October 1996, about 1:25 a.m., her husband brought their daughter Frinzi who
had an asthma attack to the UP Health Center where she was confined for three days. According to
Editha, her husband then left to withdraw money at BPI Kalayaan for the purchase of medicines.
Later, she was fetched by members of the UP Police Force who informed her that her husband had
been shot. Editha claimed that as a consequence of her husband’s death, she spent more
than P111,00016 for the nine-day wake, embalmment and funeral services.17
The prosecution and the defense agreed to dispense with the testimony of Tan, the Assistant
Manager of BPI Kalayaan. Instead, they just agreed to stipulate that on 11 October 1996, about 7:45
a.m., Tan and BPI Custodian Elma R. Piñano retrieved BPI Express Teller Card No. 3085-2616-21
issued to Bautista which was captured by the ATM because a wrong Personal Identification Number
(PIN) was entered.18
The Defense’s Version
The defense presented four witnesses: (1) Manaban; (2) Renz Javelona ("Javelona"); (3) Tan; and
(4) Patrick Peralta ("Peralta").
Manaban, the accused, testified that he was employed by Eagle Star Security Agency as a security
guard and was assigned at BPI Kalayaan. On 10 October 1996, he was on duty from 7:00 p.m. until
7:00 a.m. the following day.
Manaban narrated that on 11 October 1996, about 1:40 a.m., Bautista tried to withdraw money from
the ATM. Manaban then saw Bautista pounding and kicking the ATM. When Manaban asked
Bautista what was the problem, Bautista replied that no money came out from the machine.
According to Manaban, Bautista appeared to be intoxicated.
Manaban looked at the receipt issued to Bautista and saw that the receipt indicated that a wrong PIN
was entered. Manaban informed Bautista that the ATM captured Bautista’s ATM card because he
entered the wrong PIN. He then advised Bautista to return the following day when the staff in charge
of servicing the ATM would be around.
Bautista replied that he needed the money very badly and then resumed pounding on the ATM.
Manaban tried to stop Bautista and called by telephone the ATM service personnel to pacify
Bautista. Bautista talked to the ATM service personnel and Manaban heard him shouting invectives
and saw him pounding and kicking the ATM again.
When Manaban failed to pacify Bautista, Manaban fired a warning shot in the air. Bautista then
faced him and told him not to block his way because he needed the money very badly. Bautista
allegedly raised his shirt and showed his gun which was tucked in his waist. Manaban stepped back
and told Bautista not to draw his gun, otherwise he would shoot.
However, Bautista allegedly kept on moving toward Manaban, who again warned Bautista not to
come near him or he would be forced to shoot him. Bautista suddenly turned his back and was
allegedly about to draw his gun. Fearing that he would be shot first, Manaban pulled the trigger and
shot Bautista.
Manaban recounted that he then went inside the bank and called the police and his agency to report
the incident. While he was inside the bank, a fellow security guard arrived and asked what
happened. Manaban answered, "wala yan, lasing."
Later, a mobile patrol car arrived. Manaban related the incident to the police officer and informed him
that Bautista was still alive and had a gun. Manaban then surrendered his service firearm to the
police officer. According to Manaban, he fired his gun twice – once in the air as a warning shot and
the second time at Bautista who was about four meters from him.19
On cross-examination, Manaban further explained that after he fired the warning shot, Bautista kept
coming toward him. Manaban pointed his gun at Bautista and warned him not to come closer. When
Bautista turned his back, Manaban thought Bautista was about to draw his gun when he placed his
right hand on his waist. Fearing for his life, he pulled the trigger and shot Manaban. According to
Manaban, "[n]oong makita ko siya na pabalikwas siya, na sadya bubunot ng baril, sa takot ko na
baka maunahan niya ako at mapatay, doon ko na rin nakalabit yung gatilyo ng baril." Manaban
declared that it did not occur to him to simply disable the victim for fear that Bautista would shoot him
first.20
Javelona was an ATM Service Assistant of BPI. Javelona testified that on 11 October 1996, between
1:30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., she received a call from a client at BPI Kalayaan. The client, who was later
identified as Bautista, complained: "Nagwi-withdraw ako dito sa ATM Kalayaan. Mali daw yung PIN
ko, alam ko tama yung PIN ko. Ilang beses ko nang ginamit, mali pa rin. Kailangan kong mag-
withdraw."
Javelona tried to placate Bautista and advised him not to insert his card anymore because it might
be captured by the machine and to try again later in the morning. Bautista allegedly answered
angrily: "Na capture na nga, eh! Tama na nga yung PIN number [sic]. Hindi ako pwedeng hindi
makakuha ng pera. Kailangan kong bumili ng gamot para sa anak ko. Hindi ko naman kasalanan
ito." Javelona replied: "Sir, hindi ho natin makukuha ang card ninyo ngayon kasi ang makaka-open
lang ho ng ATM machine ay ang officer ng Kalayaan Branch. Even if makuha natin ang card ninyo
ngayon, hindi pa ninyo magagamit ngayon. Magagamit lang ninyo as soon as mag-pa-encode kayo
ng PIN number [sic]."
Bautista then reiterated angrily his dire need to withdraw money for the medicine of his daughter.
Javelona apologized to Bautista and informed him that there was really nothing she could do at that
time. She also advised Bautista to go back to the bank at 9:00 a.m. to get his ATM card and also to
withdraw money over the counter. Bautista refused to be pacified and started cursing so Javelona
decided to hang up the phone.21
Tan, the Assistant Manager of BPI Kalayaan, testified that when she reported for work in the
morning of 11 October 1996, she discovered that the ATM was out of order. According to Tan, the
ATM keyboard was not properly mounted and the keys were damaged. Also, the telephone beside
the ATM was hung up. Tan then called Peralta, the technician, to have the ATM repaired. When
Peralta opened the ATM, they found Bautista’s ATM card which was captured by the machine.22
Peralta, a Customer Engineer Specialist, testified that on 11 October 1996, BPI Kalayaan sought his
assistance regarding their ATM. When Peralta arrived at BPI Kalayaan, he talked to Tan and then
proceeded to the ATM to assess the damage. According to Peralta, the ATM keyboard was
damaged and mis-aligned.23
The Trial Court’s Ruling
On 14 April 1999, the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Homicide, the Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment
ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of Prision Correccional, as minimum,
to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Pris[i]on Mayor, as maximum; to pay indemnity to
the heirs of Joselito Bautista for his death in the amount of P75,000.00; and actual damages
in the amount of P111,324.00 for the nine-day wake, embalm[ing] and funeral services,
and P1,418,040.00 for the loss of Bautista’s earning capacity, the last to be paid by
installment at least P3,030.00 a month until fully paid with the balance earning interest at the
rate of six percent (6%) per annum; and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.24
The trial court held that the defense failed to establish self-defense as a justifying circumstance.
According to the trial court, unlawful aggression, which is the most essential element to support the
theory of self-defense, was lacking in this case. The trial court found that, contrary to Manaban’s
claim, Bautista was not about to draw his gun to shoot Manaban. Evidence show that Bautista’s gun
was still tucked in his waist inside a locked holster. Furthermore, the trial court held that Bautista
could not have surprised Manaban with a preemptive attack because Manaban himself testified that
he already had his gun pointed at Bautista when they were facing each other. The trial court likewise
rejected Manaban’s claim of exemption from criminal liability because he acted under the impulse of
an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. The trial court held that the requisites for the
exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear under paragraph 6, Article 12 of the Revised Penal
Code are not present in this case. However, the trial court credited Manaban with two mitigating
circumstances: voluntary surrender and obfuscation.
The Court of Appeals’ Ruling
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals later
reconsidered and modified its decision with respect only to the award of loss of earning capacity.
Using the formula 2/3 [80 – age at the time of death] x [gross annual income – 80% gross annual
income], the Court of Appeals recomputed the award for loss of earning capacity. In its Resolution
dated 8 November 2001, the Court of Appeals reduced the award for the loss of the victim’s earning
capacity from P1,418,040 to P436,320.
 The Issues
In his petition for review, Manaban submits that:
1. The Respondent Court gravely erred in affirming the erroneous factual appreciation and
interpretation by the trial court a quo in practically affirming the decision of the latter court
which are based on a clear misappreciation of facts and findings grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises or conjectures "in a way probably not in accord with law or with the
applicable jurisprudence of the Supreme Court."
2. The Respondent Court gravely erred in ignoring petitioner’s self-defense on the sole fact
that the entrance of the deceased victim’s wound was from the back.
3. The Respondent Court gravely erred in concluding that petitioner failed to establish
unlawful aggression just because the holster of the victim was still in a lock position.
4. Granting arguendo that petitioner made a mistake in his appreciation that there was an
attempt on the part of the deceased victim to draw his gun who executed "bumalikwas," such
mistake of fact is deemed justified.
5. Finally, the Respondent Court gravely erred in awarding exorbitant and baseless award of
damages to the heirs of deceased victim.25
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.
An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct
errors though unassigned in the appeal, or reverse the lower court’s decision on grounds other than
those the parties raised as errors.26
Unlawful Aggression is an Indispensable Requisite of Self-Defense
When the accused invokes self-defense, he in effect admits killing the victim and the burden is
shifted to him to prove that he killed the victim to save his life.27 The accused must establish by clear
and convincing evidence that all the requisites of self-defense are present.28
Under paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the three requisites to prove self-defense
as a justifying circumstance which may exempt an accused from criminal liability are: (1) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused or the person
defending himself.29 Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite of self-defense.30 Self-defense
is founded on the necessity on the part of the person being attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression.31 Thus, without prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, there can be no
complete or incomplete self-defense.32
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict physical injury
upon a person.33 A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful
aggression,34 unless the threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the wrongful intent to
cause injury.35 There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof,
which puts the defendant’s life in real peril.36
In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. First, Bautista was shot at
the back as evidenced by the point of entry of the bullet. Second, when Bautista was shot, his gun
was still inside a locked holster and tucked in his right waist. Third, when Bautista turned his back at
Manaban, Manaban was already pointing his service firearm at Bautista. These circumstances
clearly belie Manaban’s claim of unlawful aggression on Bautista's part. Manaban testified:
ATTY. ANCANAN
Q: You said the victim showed his gun by raising his shirt?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: The victim never drew his gun?
A: He was about to draw the gun when he turned around.
Q: My question is when the victim was facing you, the victim never drew his gun?
A: Not yet, sir.
Q: And when you told the victim not to come close, he did not come closer anymore?
A: He walked towards me, sir.
Q: For how many steps?
A: I cannot remember how many steps.
Q: And according to you, while he was facing you and walking towards you he
suddenly turned his back to you, is that correct?
A: Bumalikwas po at parang bubunot ng baril.
Q: Let us get the meaning of "bumalikwas", tumalikod sa iyo?
A: Bumalikwas po (witness demonstrating).
Q: Will you please demonstrate to us how the victim "bumalikwas"?
A: When he was facing me and I told him, "Sir, you just be there otherwise I am going to take
the gun" and at that moment, he, the victim turned his back and simultaneously drew the
gun.
Q: When he was facing you, the victim never drew his gun, is that correct?
A: Not yet, sir.
Q: And according to you, it was at that point when he turned his back on you that he
tried to draw his gun?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You said that he tried to draw, but the fact is he merely placed his hand on his
waist?
A: No, sir, when I saw him, when he was hit, I saw him, the hand was already on the
gun but still tucked on his waist (witness places his hand on his right waist with
fingers open).
Q: And it was at that precise moment while the victim’s back was turned on you that
you fired your shot?
A: When he was about to turn his back and it seems about to take his gun, that is the
time I shot him because of my fear that he would be ahead in pulling his gun and he
might kill me.
Q: When you said, when you fired your shot, the victim’s gun was still tucked in his
right waist, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir, his hand was on his waist.
Q: You just answer the question. Was the victim’s gun still tucked on his waistline?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And his hand was merely placed on his hips. The victim’s right hand was merely placed
on his right hip?
ATTY. CARAANG
I object. The witness testified that he was about to draw his gun.
COURT
He is asking the question so he has to answer.
A: No, sir, the gun was on his waist.
ATTY. ANCANAN
Q: At the precise time that you fired your second shot, you could have aimed your gun
at the extremities of the victim, meaning legs or arms, is that correct?
A: When I saw him that he was about to draw his gun because of my fear that he
would get ahead of me and he would kill me, I did not mind anymore, I just inunahan
ko siya.
ATTY. CARAANG
May I request that the answer of the witness be quoted as is?
A: Noong makita ko siya na pabalikwas siya, na sabay bubunot ng baril, sa takot ko na
baka maunahan niya ako at mapatay, doon ko na rin nakalabit yung gatilyo ng baril
ko.
ATTY. ANCANAN
Q: Mr. Witness, how long have you been a security guard before this incident?
A: Around 7 months, sir.
Q: Now, before you were employed as security guard by the Eagle Star Security
Agency, did you undergo any training as a security guard?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where?
A: Camp Crame, sir.
Q: For how long?
A: Three (3) days, sir.
Q: And what did you learn from those 3 days training as security guard?
A: Our duties as security guard were lectured to us, sir.
Q: Now, were you not taught during the training that in any given situation, your first
duty is to disable first an aggressor?
ATTY. CARAANG
Objection, your Honor, I think that is no longer material besides, that is not
part of my direct examination.
COURT
Witness may answer.
A: It was taught to us, sir, but it depends on my situation. If the person kept on doing
what I told him not to do and it would reach a point that it would endanger my life, of
course even if you were in my place, you would do the same thing, so
nakipagsabayan na ako, sir.
Q: But in this particular case when you fired your second shot, the victim’s back was towards
you, is that not correct?
ATTY. CARAANG
Objection, already answered, your Honor.
COURT
Witness may answer.
A: No, sir, I shot him only once, not twice.
Q: Please answer the question. When you fired your second shot . . .
A: Bumalikwas ho ’yon eh.
Q: Please answer the question.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And because his back was towards you, you could have easily disabled him by
firing at his leg or at his arms, is that not correct?
ATTY. CARAANG
I object, your Honor, it was already answered. He said he was not given the
opportunity to have a second thought and at that moment he was able to pull the
trigger of his gun.
ATTY. ANCANAN
The witness already admitted that when he fired his gun, the victim’s back was
towards the witness, so my last question is just a follow-up.
ATTY. CARAANG
But the witness testified that he was not given the opportunity to have a second
thought, that is why right then and there, he pulled the trigger of his gun.
COURT
Objection noted, witness may answer.
A: What I was thinking at that time, was just to disarm him but when he turned,
bumalikwas, and I saw that he was going to draw a firearm and that was when I
decided to "makipagsabayan."
xxx   xxx   xxx
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
ATTY. CARAANG
Q: Mr. Witness, when you and the victim were facing each other, the gun was already
pointed to him, is it not? Your gun?
A: Yes, sir, I pointed my gun at him.37
The allegation of Manaban that Bautista was about to draw his gun when he turned his back at
Manaban is mere speculation. Besides, Manaban was already aiming his loaded firearm at Bautista
when the latter turned his back. In that situation, it was Bautista whose life was in danger
considering that Manaban, who had already fired a warning shot, was pointing his firearm at
Bautista. Bautista, who was a policeman, would have realized this danger to his life and would not
have attempted to draw his gun which was still inside a locked holster tucked in his waist.
Furthermore, if Manaban really feared that Bautista was about to draw his gun to shoot him,
Manaban could have easily disabled Bautista by shooting his arm or leg considering that Manaban’s
firearm was already aimed at Bautista.
Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must face a real threat to his life and the peril
sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary.38 Absent such actual or imminent peril to
one’s life or limb, there is nothing to repel and there is no justification for taking the life or inflicting
injuries on another.39
Voluntary Surrender and Obfuscation
The trial court credited Manaban with two mitigating circumstances: voluntary surrender and
obfuscation.
It is undisputed that Manaban called the police to report the shooting incident. When the police
arrived, Manaban surrendered his service firearm and voluntarily went with the police to the police
station for investigation. Thus, Manaban is entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender.
On obfuscation, we find that the facts of the case do not entitle Manaban to such mitigating
circumstance. Under paragraph 6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, the mitigating circumstance
of passion and obfuscation is appreciated where the accused acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. The requisites of the mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscation are: (1) that there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce
such condition of mind; and (2) that the act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed
from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity.40
In his testimony, Manaban admitted shooting Bautista because Bautista turned around and was
allegedly about to draw his gun to shoot Manaban. The act of Bautista in turning around is not
unlawful and sufficient cause for Manaban to lose his reason and shoot Bautista. That Manaban
interpreted such act of Bautista as preparatory to drawing his gun to shoot Manaban does not make
Bautista’s act unlawful. The threat was only in the mind of Manaban and is mere speculation which
is not sufficient to produce obfuscation which is mitigating.41 Besides, the threat or danger was not
grave or serious considering that Manaban had the advantage over Bautista because Manaban was
already pointing his firearm at Bautista when the latter turned his back. The defense failed to
establish by clear and convincing evidence the cause that allegedly produced obfuscation.
Award of Damages
The records42 reveal that Bautista was 36 years old at the time of his death and not 26 years old as
stated by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.43 Moreover, the annual salary of Bautista at the
time of his death was already P60,864 and not P60,600.44 We likewise modify the formula applied by
the Court of Appeals in the computation of the award for loss of earning capacity. In accordance with
current jurisprudence,45 the formula for the indemnification for loss of earning capacity is:
Net Earning = Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual – Living Expenses]
Capacity Income (GAI)
  = 2/3(80 – age of deceased) x (GAI – 50% of GAI)
Using this formula, the indemnification for loss of earning capacity should be:
Net Earning = 2/3 (80 – 36) x [P60,864 – (50% x P60,864)]
Capacity
  = 29.33 x P30,432
  = P892,570.56
With regard to actual damages, the records show that not all the expenses that the Bautista family
allegedly incurred were supported by competent evidence. Editha failed to present receipts or any
other competent proof for food expenses and rental fee for jeeps for the funeral. Editha merely
submitted a typewritten "Summary of Food Expenses & Others."46 A mere list of expenses, without
any official receipts or any other evidence obtainable, does not to prove actual expenses
incurred.47 Competent proof of the actual expenses must be presented to justify an award for actual
damages.48 In this case, only the following expenses were duly supported by official receipts and
other proof :
1. Embalming fee49 P11,000
2. Bronze Casket50 25,000
3. Cadillac Hearse fee 51
3,500
4. Funeral Services 52
  30,000
    Total P69,500
Thus, we reduce the actual damages granted from P111,324 to P69,500.
We likewise reduce the indemnity for death from P75,000 to P50,000 in accordance with prevailing
jurisprudence.53
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 21
May 2001 and its Resolution dated 8 November 2001. We find petitioner Ramonito Manaban guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and
taking into account the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, Ramonito Manaban is hereby
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from six years and one day of prision mayor as
minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Ramonito Manaban is
ordered to pay the heirs of Joselito Bautista: P892,570.56 as indemnity for loss of earning
capacity; P69,500 as actual damages; and P50,000 as indemnity for death.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Chairperson, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr., J.J., concur.